Questions for MysticPhd (heaven, Creator, power, examples)

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by Morbert

Consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. A measurement is an entanglement between the system being measured and the apparatus doing the measuring. There is no obligation for the apparatus to be conscious.

If I can qualify that by saying that Consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics in this case. As you say in the case of the double slit experiment there is no obligation for the apparatus to be conscious.

However I don't know if you have been following the thread but Roger Penrose believes that there is something about the nature of consciousness that does in fact suggest a quantum process (not yet understood)
He says that if you believe everything in the universe is governed by universal physical laws, then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
The truth is we don't know what causes consciousness, so I usually try to be aware to not to state anything as an outright fact.

Here's a snippet from a previous post:

Originally Posted by Cruithne

....three general possibilities regarding the origin and place of consciousness in the universe that are commonly expressed.

a)Consciousness is not an independent quality but arose as a natural evolutionary consequence of the biological adaptation of brains and nervous systems. This is the most popular scientific view is that consciousness emerged as a property of complex biological computation during the course of evolution.

b)Consciousness is a quality that has always been in the universe. (A Spiritual /religious approach)

c) Precursors of consciousness have always been in the universe; biology evolved a mechanism to convert conscious precursors to actual consciousness.

The latter is the view taken by Penrose. Something in the quantum nature of the universe may have something to do with consciousness.

He believes that activity in our brain is non-computational -that something instantaneous is going on.
He believes that the brain-as-computer view is incomplete and that other approaches are required. The conventional brain-as-computer view fails to account for:
* Distinctions between conscious and non-conscious.
* 'Non-computable' thought and understanding.
* 'Binding and synchrony', the problem of how disparate neuronal activities are bound into unified conscious experience.
* Measurable brain activity corresponding to a stimulus often occurs after we've responded (seemingly consciously) to that stimulus.
* Cognitive behaviors of single cell organisms. Protozoans like Paramecium can swim, find food and mates, learn, remember and have sex, all without synaptic computation.

As a scientist and atheist Penrose believes that whatever controls non-computational actions in our brain, must be explained by something in physics that is not yet understood. He believes that quantum theory is incomplete and that there is something in the physics that is non-computational.

I am not presenting Penroses view as something I necessarily believe is the answer but I do find the research fascinating.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

If I can qualify that by saying that Consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics in this case. As you say in the case of the double slit experiment there is no obligation for the apparatus to be conscious.

However I don't know if you have been following the thread but Roger Penrose believes that there is something about the nature of consciousness that does in fact suggest a quantum process (not yet understood)
He says that if you believe everything in the universe is governed by universal physical laws, then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
The truth is we don't know what causes consciousness, so I usually try to be aware to not to state anything as an outright fact.

Here's a snippet from a previous post:

I love Penrose, I especially love his book "The Road to Reality". He is an invaluable theoretical physicist.

Penrose (Along with an anesthesiologist) suggests that consciousness arises from "orchestrated objective reduction" of the quantum wavefunction, which is a fancy way of saying consciousness emerges from gravitationally collapsing wavefunctions ( Penrose interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). While the question of consciousness is an interesting one, the "Orch OR" proposal ( Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) has serious flaws, and has been severely criticized by the scientific community (see examples in the link).

Also, it should be emphasised that Penrose's proposal still pertains to mechanical processes producing consciousness. I.e. He does not say conscious agency fundamentally causes collapse of the wavefunction, he says the same process that causes wavefunctions to collapse (gravity) also permits non-computable consciousness in brains, as the process of collapse is not computable. This is why observation and collapse seem so intimately related.

In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Morbert

Consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. A measurement is an entanglement between the system being measured and the apparatus doing the measuring. There is no obligation for the apparatus to be conscious.

That is your view but it is not a consensus view by any stretch of the imagination. Your instrumentalism is revealed by your focus on Hilbert operators and the mathematics. It is devoid of any attempt to philosophically interpret the implications of the mathematics for our reality. It is an anti-realism point of view that is not universally accepted. You would pretend that there is but one interpretation of quantum theory . . . when in fact there are many. You would pretend that my views are not only wrong but a fringe interpretation . . . when they are neither.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is your view but it is not a consensus view by any stretch of the imagination. Your instrumentalism is revealed by your focus on Hilbert operators and the mathematics. It is devoid of any attempt to philosophically interpret the implications of the mathematics for our reality. It is an anti-realism point of view that is not universally accepted. You would pretend that there is but one interpretation of quantum theory . . . when in fact there are many. You would pretend that my views are not only wrong but a fringe interpretation . . . when they are neither.

Mystic, you have shown yourself to be consistently wrong on these matters before.

It is the consensus by a long long long stretch that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness. It is a theory which describes the time-evolution of the system whether or not conscious observers are involved.

While there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, the notion that consciousness somehow causes collapse has been rejected, even Eugene Wigner, one of its original founders. There is absolutely no compelling reason to believe consciousness must play a fundamental role in quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics

Also, instrumentalism is a perfectly sound philosophical position to take. It is certainly more prudent than adopting a ham-fisted classical ontology, which amounts to little more than bigotry against how the world really is.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is your view but it is not a consensus view by any stretch of the imagination. Your instrumentalism is revealed by your focus on Hilbert operators and the mathematics. It is devoid of any attempt to philosophically interpret the implications of the mathematics for our reality. It is an anti-realism point of view that is not universally accepted. You would pretend that there is but one interpretation of quantum theory . . . when in fact there are many. You would pretend that my views are not only wrong but a fringe interpretation . . . when they are neither.

Originally Posted by Morbert

Mystic, you have shown yourself to be consistently wrong on these matters before.

NO . . . you have consistently been accusing me of being wrong but you have shown no such thing.

Also, instrumentalism is a perfectly sound philosophical position to take. It is certainly more prudent than adopting a ham-fisted classical ontology, which amounts to little more than bigotry against how the world really is.

Your preference for instrumentalism and inability to interpret the philosophical implications of the math for the structure and composition of reality reveals you are mired in the Rosenblum/Kuttner enigma:

"Classical physics explains the world quite well. It's just the details it can't handle. Quantum physics handles the details quite well. It's just the world it can't explain."

At least I have made the effort to do so in my "ham-fisted classical ontology" metaphors in my Synthesis. You have only scoffed and offered no alternative.

It is the consensus by a long long long stretch that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness. It is a theory which describes the time-evolution of the system whether or not conscious observers are involved.

Then please explain the quantum eraser phenomenon for my edification.

[Morbert]

At least I have made the effort to do so in my "ham-fisted classical ontology" metaphors in my Synthesis. You have only scoffed and offered no alternative.

There is no alternative. The nature of reality is simply different from our classical notions.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Then please explain the quantum eraser phenomenon for my edification.

How does the quantum eraser phenomenon imply consciousness. It is is sometimes used (incorrectly) to imply a strange retrocausality to QM (where events in the present can influence events in the past).

Are you asking me to explain why the quantum eraser doesn't imply retrocausality?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

NO . . . you have consistently been accusing me of being wrong but you have shown no such thing. Your preference for instrumentalism and inability to interpret the philosophical implications of the math for the structure and composition of reality reveals you are mired in the Rosenblum/Kuttner enigma:

"Classical physics explains the world quite well. It's just the details it can't handle. Quantum physics handles the details quite well. It's just the world it can't explain."

At least I have made the effort to do so in my "ham-fisted classical ontology" metaphors in my Synthesis. You have only scoffed and offered no alternative.

Cop out!

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Then please explain the quantum eraser phenomenon for my edification

You are so coy. I am glad we agree that the transactional interpretation of the future causing or communicating with the past is incorrect. But I am asking for YOUR explanation that you seem to feel is somehow superior to consciousness itself as the explanation for the effects. I eagerly anticipate being educated on the issue.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Cop out!

No it is not a cop out. You keep wheeling out this silly, dated, bigoted notion that the universe should conform to our classical concepts at the fundamental level. The universe doesn't give a damn about your demands.

You are so coy. I am glad we agree that the transactional interpretation of the future causing or communicating with the past is incorrect. But I am asking for YOUR explanation that you seem to feel is somehow superior to consciousness itself as the explanation for the effects. I eagerly anticipate being educated on the issue.

You didn't answer my question. How does the quantum eraser experiment imply consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics?

I ask because the quantum eraser experiment is perfectly understandable using conventional quantum mechanics. The probability that the signal photon will be detected at a position L on the detector screen is unrelated to anything the idle photon does. They are not causally linked by some mystic consciousness field or anything of the sort.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Morbert

No it is not a cop out. You keep wheeling out this silly, dated, bigoted notion that the universe should conform to our classical concepts at the fundamental level. The universe doesn't give a damn about your demands.

You still don't get it. I wheel out the classical concepts to communicate with a lay audience who have no other frame of reference. That is the purpose of metaphor, simile, analogy, etc.

You didn't answer my question. How does the quantum eraser experiment imply consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics?

Consciousness provides the locus for the "spooky" instantaneous information at a distance. It is the information reservoir not subject to the limitations of timespace because it is what establishes timespace. You clearly did not pick up on that from my Synthesis either. You have missed most of the points made in the Synthesis because of your obsession with the analogies/similie/metaphors violating your understanding of physics. They violate nothing . . . they analogize the philosophical implications of the actual physics. You don't even try to communicate those implications . . . whether due to lack of desire or ability is unknown.

I ask because the quantum eraser experiment is perfectly understandable using conventional quantum mechanics. The probability that the signal photon will be detected at a position L on the detector screen is unrelated to anything the idle photon does. They are not causally linked by some mystic consciousness field or anything of the sort.

Please enlighten me how you explain the implications for our reality of the delayed quantum eraser results. I suspect you cannot because you do not think there are any implications for reality. You think it is all just mathematics. I am STILL waiting to be enlightened.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You still don't get it. I wheel out the classical concepts to communicate with a lay audience who have no other frame of reference. That is the purpose of metaphor, simile, analogy, etc.Consciousness provides the locus for the "spooky" instantaneous information at a distance. It is the information reservoir not subject to the limitations of timespace because it is what establishes timespace. You clearly did not pick up on that from my Synthesis either. You have missed most of the points made in the Synthesis because of your obsession with the analogies/similie/metaphors violating your understanding of physics. They violate nothing . . . they analogize the philosophical implications of the actual physics. You don't even try to communicate those implications . . . whether due to lack of desire or ability is unknown.Please enlighten me how you explain the implications for our reality of the delayed quantum eraser results. I suspect you cannot because you do not think there are any implications for reality. You think it is all just mathematics. I am STILL waiting to be enlightened.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Oh come on, you think this ABC eraser problem cannot be figured out or idea's by people not in science but know the rules, relativity time all the toys to play with , metaphors are for people who can't figure things out. ABC mystic, the only reason the pro's can't probably put a book together is because a) there is nothing contrary to the model, b) it would be tough to show time issues and prove and b) there is nothing to really learn because there is no big deal, (You really think many many pro's don't have a few really good idea's on this eraser thing ?) other then the pop science nuts who want to jump in and get something for the public going...not so ? show , show your supposed discovery, or is it really just allot of boo-hoo. All you do is repeat garble, psychological trickery over and over and over...and over. Nobody understands but you , but the problem is guess what ? there is zero to offer in any way whatsoever, nothing. Just garble from a bunch of sites that you are reading. Repeat garble with no content can only last so ,long...time is up, produce or well I donno, maybe sales 101. Never underestimate the customer, that is all it is , right ? not knowledge, the customer whoever that is I have no clue and could not care. Produce or drop the affirmative BS. Im sick and tired of this cry baby act. Give a go at the meat and bones of it or go for a pizza and call it a day. There is no value in laziness !

As usual this is post largely incoherent . . . but the delayed quantum eraser presents some interesting issues that offer interesting implications for the structure and composition of our reality. I have asked Morbert to give his view and he seems reluctant. I suspect because he can only present the mathematics . . . not the philosophical implications of them. As an instrumentalist . . . he probably doesn't think there are any implications for reality.